With all due respect nWo, Obama and the Dems have done nothing but bring race into this election. Every time someone got on him, it was because "he doesn't look like the guys on the dollar bills". Remember that? Obama's words, not mine, he did the same garbage when he ran against Hillary. Seems odd to me that you are willing to look past that but lay heavy on me because I question Powell's intent, and you lay even heavier on the Republican party. You're dismissing what the Democrats have been doing all along, I don't get it.

 

BTW, your comment of "you are fine as long as you go along with their agenda, if you exercise your own judgment you or don't follow in lockstep you will be ostracized" is a perfect example of Liberals, not Conservatives.

 

 

You might, as 75 did, say that it is BOTH liberals and conservatives, but your logic here doesn't fly. So many people have jumped off the Powell bandwagon now AFTER he endorsed Obama. That's the only thing that is different.

 

As to the first part, race has been brought up by the Obama campaign. To not do so would be like ignoring the pink elephant in the room. But to say they have "done nothing but bring race" into the campaign is QUITE a stretch.

You might, as 75 did, say that it is BOTH liberals and conservatives, but your logic here doesn't fly. So many people have jumped off the Powell bandwagon now AFTER he endorsed Obama. That's the only thing that is different.

 

As to the first part, race has been brought up by the Obama campaign. To not do so would be like ignoring the pink elephant in the room. But to say they have "done nothing but bring race" into the campaign is QUITE a stretch.

I just posted yet another example of them bringing race into it. It's endless. And my logic flies just fine, thank you very much.

What would that have to do with them quoting Powell?

 

I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities -- and you have to take that into account -- as well as his substance -- he has both style and substance," Powell said. "He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."

 

Powell noted that McCain has been a good friend for 25 years, but expressed disappointment in the "over the top" negative tone of the GOP campaign, as well as in McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the vice presidential nominee.

 

"Now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president," Powell said. "And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made."

 

He also harshly criticized some of McCain's campaign tactics, such as the robocall campaign linking Obama to former 1960s radical Bill Ayers.

 

"Mr. McCain says that he's a washed up terrorist, but then why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have the robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate. Now, I understand what politics is all about, I know how you can go after one another and that's good. But I think this goes too far, and I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for."

 

Powell also spoke passionately against the insinuations by some Republicans that Obama is a Muslim.

 

"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian," he said. "But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

 

He should spend an evening here...

Nearly 90% of African-Americans voters have voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate in every election since 1964. Given the shift in the general electorate's party affiliation away from the Republicans and toward the Democrats and the state of the economy (which, rightly or wrongly disproportionately penalizes incumbents), why should a high percentage of African-Americans voting for the Democratic Presidential candidate mean they are supporting Obama because he is black?

I guess it depends on how one defines "nearly." Bill Clinton received 83 and 84 percent of the African-American vote in the two presidential elections that he won. 95 percent would be a significant improvement over 84 percent, IMO. In fact, 95 percent would be a substantial improvement over 90 percent, especially if the turnout is as heavy as expected.

 

As somebody already pointed out, if race was not a huge factor in the decision of many African-Americans in elections, then Hillary Clinton would have won a much larger share of black votes in the primaries. Hillary's positions were not all that different from Obama's, yet she won black voters' support in numbers normally seen only by Republican candidates. For example, Obama won 90 percent of African-American votes to Hillary's 10 percent in Pennsylvania. Party affiliation does not explain why African-Americans voted almost monolithically against Hillary.

With all due respect nWo, Obama and the Dems have done nothing but bring race into this election. Every time someone got on him, it was because "he doesn't look like the guys on the dollar bills". Remember that? Obama's words, not mine, he did the same garbage when he ran against Hillary. Seems odd to me that you are willing to look past that but lay heavy on me because I question Powell's intent, and you lay even heavier on the Republican party. You're dismissing what the Democrats have been doing all along, I don't get it.

 

BTW, your comment of "you are fine as long as you go along with their agenda, if you exercise your own judgment you or don't follow in lockstep you will be ostracized" is a perfect example of Liberals, not Conservatives.

You asked me a question and I gave you my answer. So how is that laying heavy on you? Also you need to reread my post I said both sides are playing the race card. So how am I dismissing anything?

 

As to your last paragraph, I rest my case.

You asked me a question and I gave you my answer. So how is that laying heavy on you? Also you need to reread my post I said both sides are playing the race card. So how am I dismissing anything?

 

As to your last paragraph, I rest my case.

As to the initial comment that brought my response, I rest my case.

 

Did you read my link?

As to the initial comment that brought my response, I rest my case.

 

Did you read my link?

I've read to of his posts where he said both sides are playing the race card that.

What would that have to do with them quoting Powell?

 

I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities -- and you have to take that into account -- as well as his substance -- he has both style and substance," Powell said. "He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."

 

Powell noted that McCain has been a good friend for 25 years, but expressed disappointment in the "over the top" negative tone of the GOP campaign, as well as in McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the vice presidential nominee.

 

"Now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president," Powell said. "And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made."

 

He also harshly criticized some of McCain's campaign tactics, such as the robocall campaign linking Obama to former 1960s radical Bill Ayers.

 

"Mr. McCain says that he's a washed up terrorist, but then why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have the robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate. Now, I understand what politics is all about, I know how you can go after one another and that's good. But I think this goes too far, and I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for."

 

Powell also spoke passionately against the insinuations by some Republicans that Obama is a Muslim.

 

"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian," he said. "But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

 

And I certainly agree with Powell on the bolded part. But if Powell is endorsing Obama because what some senior members in the R party are saying, I don't think he's basing his endorsement on logical footing. Don't get me wrong. I'm not happy at all with those R's that are very close minded. If you'll recall, I was one of the strongest condemner's on here of Willie Cunningham's comments. But I don't walk away from the Republican Party simply because of what some R's do. And if the standard that Powell is using is dumb comments by senior people in a party, how in the heck can he endorse Obama when his VP Biden is making the stupid comments he's made?

 

Bottom line with me is that Powell's endorsement stems simply from the fact he is upset with the R party because they made him look bad on his support for the Iraq War and because Bush fired him. There's an ax to grind and he's grinding it.

And I certainly agree with Powell on the bolded part. But if Powell is endorsing Obama because what some senior members in the R party are saying, I don't think he's basing his endorsement on logical footing. Don't get me wrong. I'm not happy at all with those R's that are very close minded. If you'll recall, I was one of the strongest condemner's on here of Willie Cunningham's comments. But I don't walk away from the Republican Party simply because of what some R's do. And if the standard that Powell is using is dumb comments by senior people in a party, how in the heck can he endorse Obama when his VP Biden is making the stupid comments he's made?

 

Bottom line with me is that Powell's endorsement stems simply from the fact he is upset with the R party because they made him look bad on his support for the Iraq War and because Bush fired him. There's an ax to grind and he's grinding it.

Not that it matters, but Obama has not always been a Christian and I do not believe that even he has ever claimed that to be the case.

Pro-Choice is misleading. Pro-Abortion Rights is more accurate.

 

If you think that supporting taxpayer-funded abortions is actually the true conservative (or Libertarian) viewpoint, then I think you and I have different ideas on what conservatism is.

 

You said it yourself- government should provide infrastructure, national security, and protection of rights. I don't think you would argue that government should use the taxpayers' money to fund something they don't support. What they should provide, in this situation, is a protection of rights for the infant- like the right to Life.

I do not think the government should pay for abortions. To my knowledge most people who get an abortion pay for it themselves.

 

This is where we differ, I think to a certain point in the pregnancy what the government should be protecting is the right to a choice, just as in my thought with most things.

 

The true conservative viewpoint is less government interference in our lives. I think it's hard to argue that allowing the choice to an abortion is less government, which in my mind makes it fall within the true conservative philosophy.

I do not think the government should pay for abortions. To my knowledge most people who get an abortion pay for it themselves.

 

This is where we differ, I think to a certain point in the pregnancy what the government should be protecting is the right to a choice, just as in my thought with most things.

 

The true conservative viewpoint is less government interference in our lives. I think it's hard to argue that allowing the choice to an abortion is less government, which in my mind makes it fall within the true conservative philosophy.

 

According to the Planned Parenthood 2006-2007 Annual Report, they received $336.7 million in government grants in FY 2007. (see page 14 of the Report, which is Sec 2:14 of the PDF). Granted PP does other things than abortions, but it is nonetheless taxpayer-funded abortion.

 

The fact that "terminating a pregnancy" has been reduced to "a choice" is disturbing, especially for someone who believes life begins at conception. The government is not forcing young, unmarried women to have children- they have made a conscious choice to do that.

According to the Planned Parenthood 2006-2007 Annual Report, they received $336.7 million in government grants in FY 2007. (see page 14 of the Report, which is Sec 2:14 of the PDF). Granted PP does other things than abortions, but it is nonetheless taxpayer-funded abortion.

 

The fact that "terminating a pregnancy" has been reduced to "a choice" is disturbing, especially for someone who believes life begins at conception. The government is not forcing young, unmarried women to have children- they have made a conscious choice to do that.

 

I think we both know I disagree with that.

 

I honestly don't know if I believe life begins at conception. I don't advocate abortions, but I know that there are reasons people have them. Not being a female I would never be able to fully understand some of those reasons. Plus there are reasons such as health of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

I've read to of his posts where he said both sides are playing the race card that.

Both sides, yes, but he doesn't confirm that both Biden and Obama are the worst offenders. After he chides the Republican Party for problems of race, he then say's he's proud to vote for the guy that's the worst offender. It's a bit confusing to me to say the least.

Now Powell has endorses Obama right? And it was Powell that advised Bush to go to war with Iriq right and it was Powell that went to UN. And with Obama being endorsed by Powell, and Obama says that Powell will be on his staff, we are all to have comfort with the people that Obama has around him if he is prez. Powell wrong, Bidin wrong, OBAMA wrong.

And it was Powell that advised Bush to go to war with Iriq right and it was Powell that went to UN.

Not true ... Powell was probably the lone dissenting voice on Iraq in the Bush administration.

 

Powell went to the UN because he was serving his president.